Gold Standard (Return) 'Is there Gold in Fort Knox' CBS

[Stratovarious]

In 2008 Rand Brought this up , CBS did a piece in 2010, I can't find where anyone has gone down to verify what is there.

A few years back I did some rough (very rough) calculations, and determined at the then current prices and the % of acceptable
backing , it might be possible, perhaps with some other precious metals to later augment it.

What a better way to kill the Fed Reserve, and get back to a non Fiat Currency, take our country back from Foreign Banks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-there-gold-in-fort-knox/

Protected by a 109,000-acre U.S. Army post in Kentucky sits one of the Federal Reserve's most secure assets and its only gold depository: the 73-year-old Fort Knox vault. Its glittering gold bricks, totaling 147.3 million ounces (that's about $168 billion at current prices), are stacked inside massive granite walls topped with a bombproof roof. Or are they?
It’s hard to know for sure. Few people have been inside Fort Knox, a highly classified bunker ringed by fences and multiple alarms and guarded by Apache helicopter gunships. When the U.S. finished building Fort Knox in 1937, the gold was shipped in on a special nine-car train manned by machine gunners and loaded onto Army trucks protected by a U.S. Cavalry brigade. And the fort has been pretty much off limits since then. A U.S. Mint spokesman said in an email statement to MoneyWatch that the accounting firm KPMG, which audits the Mint, “has been present in the vault at Fort Knox.” The Mint won’t comment on exactly how much gold is in there, though.
That’s why Ron Paul (R-Texas), a 2008 presidential candidate known for his libertarian streak, wants to have a look around. Paul introduced a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, which includes Fort Knox’s gold. “My attitude is, let’s just find out what’s there,” he says.
PlayVideo
MarketsWhy Gold Prices Are Sky High

Amid economic uncertainty, gold prices keep hitting all-time highs. But will the surge continue? Eric Schurenberg tells us just how bullish we sh...

Despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, no serious Fed watcher thinks Fort Knox is wholly goldless — not even Paul. The push by Paul and a conspiracy-theorist group known as Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) to open Fort Knox’s 22-ton door is more about their loathing of the Federal Reserve and its purported growing powers. “The gold market is being manipulated by the Fed,” says GATA spokesman Chris Powell. “It’s involved in gold swap agreements with foreign banks. Gold is a major determinant of interest rates.”
How Important Is Fort Knox?

The bad news for Goldfinger buffs, say gold analysts, is that Fort Knox doesn’t really matter much anymore.
Fort Knox began losing its luster when the United States went off the gold standard in 1971. Before that, gold bars packed into a secure vault gave people faith in the country’s currency. Today, however, Fort Knox’s gold is now an asset on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, not a key part of our monetary system.
Though Fort Knox’s security overkill may seem a quaint relic of bygone days — like the Beefeaters guarding the Tower of London — the gold there and at U.S. Mint facilities adds up to one of the world’s largest bullion holdings. Still, it’s a tiny part of the nation’s total assets. In a $13.8 trillion GDP economy, 147.3 million troy ounces of gold barely registers.
“It may lend some confidence to investors that we have large gold reserves,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “But it’s more symbolic than substantive.”
The Fed’s gold is valued at a tremendously low figure — just $42.22 an ounce. The rock-bottom figure was set in 1973, two years after we left the gold standard, primarily to avoid wild accounting swings. “What would happen if the price of gold drops dramatically?” asks Dimitri Papadimitriou, president of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College. “The Fed balance sheet would be dramatically lower.”

Time for Fort Knox to Sell?

The Fed won’t be unloading large stashes from Fort Knox anytime soon. Doing so would flood the market and send the price of gold spiraling downward. “A small, vocal group of gold bugs would be against it,” says John Irons, research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. “The Fed wouldn’t want to stir things up.”
But Irons and some other economists would like to see the U.S.’s gold reserves thinned out. “The Fed could sell a lot of the gold,” says Irons. “It’s better used in jewelry or in electronics. It can be useful to the private economy rather than buried in a vault.” The sale could make a small dent in the $12.1 trillion national debt and, with the price of gold near its all-time high, this is a particularly good time to sell.
The reason Fort Knox will remain a mighty fortress, however, may come down to something Alan Greenspan once told Paul. When Paul asked the former Fed Chairman why the Fed hangs onto its hefty gold reserves, “Greenspan said ‘just in case we need it,’” says Paul. “You hold onto it because it’s the ultimate in money.”

Additionally from Newsmax 2014:

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Ed-Mo.../06/id/575519/

Wallstreet Daily: Biggest Government lie in History ? 2013 ;

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2013/...ort-knox-gold/



, ,

[TheTexan]

Why does it matter how much gold is in fort knox?

[Danke]

He writes that the Federal Reserve owns it...

[TheTexan]

At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter. It's not like gold is money.

[TheCount]

Why does it matter how much gold is in fort knox?

It doesn't.

[Stratovarious]

He writes that the Federal Reserve owns it...

Paul or Shurenberg ?
Shurenberg, because it's on the FR Balance sheet ? If so , why in the #### is it ?

[Stratovarious]

It doesn't.

Why not ?

[Stratovarious]

Why does it matter how much gold is in fort knox?

One sentence ?

...tell us .....

[TheCount]

Why not ?

The dollar is not backed by it.

[Deborah K]

The dollar is not backed by it.

And there's no hope that it ever will be if there isn't any gold there. I would like to know if there is gold in Ft. Knox, yes I would.

[Stratovarious]

The dollar is not backed by it.

That's my point in the OP, lets find out secure it (lol) kick the Global Bankers out of our hair.

[Stratovarious]

And there's no hope that it ever will be if there isn't any gold there. I would like to know if there is gold in Ft. Knox, yes I would.

There is so much secrecy and voodoo with the fed gov and FR , if we wait much longer to dismanlte the Fed Reserve, China et al will be here taking inventory of the whole lot of us.
We'll be speaking Chinese by 2020.

[TheCount]

That's my point in the OP, lets find out secure it (lol) kick the Global Bankers out of our hair.

The global bankers are us.

[Stratovarious]

The global bankers are us.

We need a change, Quantitative Easing is a joke , you don't have to play shell games when you have tangible assets.

, ,

[Zippyjuan]

We still had the Fed and bankers even when the currency was backed by gold.

The Fed’s gold is valued at a tremendously low figure — just $42.22 an ounce. The rock-bottom figure was set in 1973, two years after we left the gold standard, primarily to avoid wild accounting swings. “What would happen if the price of gold drops dramatically?” asks Dimitri Papadimitriou, president of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College. “The Fed balance sheet would be dramatically lower.”

Time for Fort Knox to Sell?

The Fed won’t be unloading large stashes from Fort Knox anytime soon. Doing so would flood the market and send the price of gold spiraling downward. “A small, vocal group of gold bugs would be against it,” says John Irons, research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. “The Fed wouldn’t want to stir things up.”

But Irons and some other economists would like to see the U.S.’s gold reserves thinned out. “The Fed could sell a lot of the gold,” says Irons. “It’s better used in jewelry or in electronics. It can be useful to the private economy rather than buried in a vault.” The sale could make a small dent in the $12.1 trillion national debt and, with the price of gold near its all-time high, this is a particularly good time to sell.

The reason Fort Knox will remain a mighty fortress, however, may come down to something Alan Greenspan once told Paul. When Paul asked the former Fed Chairman why the Fed hangs onto its hefty gold reserves, “Greenspan said ‘just in case we need it,’” says Paul. “You hold onto it because it’s the ultimate in money.”

The Fed does not own the gold at Fort Knox- (or any other gold) it merely stores it for the US Treasury and some foreign governments- they cannot sell it even if they want to. There is no gold on their balance sheet so the price of gold has zero impact on it. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/

[Zippyjuan]

They did audit the gold at the New York Fed just a couple years ago.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb...-pure-20130218

Gold at N.Y. Fed is intact, some purer than thought, audit finds
February 18, 2013

NEW YORK -- The U.S. government’s gold in New York is safe in a vault underneath Manhattan, and some of the precious metal there is purer than previously thought.

That’s according to a first-ever audit conducted last year by the Treasury Department of U.S. gold on deposit at Federal Reserve banks in New York and elsewhere.

As part of the audit, the Treasury tested a sample of the government’s 34,021 gold bars in the New York Fed’s vault five stories below Manhattan’s financial district, according to the inspector general’s office. Auditors drilled tiny holes into the bars to remove samples that were tested for fineness in a process called assaying.

In three of the 367 tests, the gold was more pure than Treasury records indicated, according to the Treasury's inspector general. As a result, the government notched up the value of its gold holdings by approximately 27 fine troy ounces – or about $43,500, based on gold’s market value Monday.

The audit of the Fed gold came after 2012 presidential contender and former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) questioned the central bank's gold holdings. While he was in Congress, Paul questioned whether the New York Fed had loaned or otherwise encumbered U.S. gold in financial arrangements, and he advanced a bill that would have required a full assay and audit of the country’s gold reserves.

The assaying process consumed 10 ounces of gold, and the remaining 69 ounces removed for sampling were returned to the Treasury, according to the inspector general’s office.

The U.S. gold at the New York Fed has been placed under so-called Official Joint Seals, attesting to the results of the audit.

“At this point, we do plan to conduct this audit annually,” the inspector general’s office said in e-mailed responses to questions. “However, since the gold is now under Official Joint Seal, we would not anticipate weighing, counting, and assaying unless the seal shows signs of tampering.”

Results of the audit were released in January. The audit also examined internal controls, security and operations at the New York Fed.

"Our audit disclosed no material weaknesses and no instances of reportable noncompliance with laws and regulations,” the Treasury’s audit report said.

The New York Fed holds 99.98% of the U.S.-owned gold bars and coins in the custody of the Federal Reserve. The rest of the gold is on display at Fed banks in cities such as Richmond, Kansas City and San Francisco.

As of Sept. 30, when the market price of gold was $1,776 an ounce, the Fed banks held $23.9 billion in U.S. gold. (Gold has since declined in value, and on Monday the precious metal was hovering around $1,610 an ounce.)

The vast majority of the country’s gold reserves is held elsewhere, in Fort Knox, West Point and Denver.

[Stratovarious]

We still had the Fed and bankers even when the currency was backed by gold.




The Fed does not own the gold at Fort Knox- (or any other gold) it merely stores it for the US Treasury and some foreign governments- they cannot sell it even if they want to. There is no gold on their balance sheet so the price of gold has zero impact on it. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/

Correct, they don't own it and they should not be in control of it, this is one of very few places where our government should be in charge, but I guess
like the borders (another one of their duties) , they probably can't or won't handle it.
Regardless, there is ZERO TRANSPARENCY , we need Congress to be directly answerable to EVERY TRANSACTION in our monetary system,
they need a delegation for oversight.

, ,

[ctiger2]

If the Govt deems Gold is money again, then Gold is FIAT as well. 'let it be'

BTW we're probably going all digital by 2017, no Gold standard.

[Stratovarious]

If the Govt deems Gold is money again, then Gold is FIAT as well. 'let it be'

BTW we're probably going all digital by 2017, no Gold standard.

No offense but NO , what you are saying is that precious items have no value and human assessment of Value is irrelevant, unfortunately
what we perveive as value is a human assessement.
Bring on the robots, we are no longer relevant.

, ,

[Zippyjuan]

It does not say that gold has no value- only that gold is highly unlikely to be used as money. 90% of money today is already digital.

Martin Armstrong (who is often cited by some here) has said that gold can be fiat.

Fiat is declaring something has a certain value. A gold standard is a fiat standard since the government declares the value of gold. Actually our money today is less fiat than gold because the value of the dollar is allowed to float.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/0...ing-this-term/

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong

People seem to just equate any non commodity form of money as being fiat. But fiat means a value dictated by government. There seems to be a foot-loose use of the word fiat to the point I am not sure what people are yelling about. Bitcoin fluctuates wildly so where is the difference between that and paper money which also is not fixed?

Confused

Thanks

ANSWER: No you are correct. The term “fiat” is actually not applicable to money today for it floats and thus has no value decreed by law. the definition is specific that Fiat money is a currency which derives its value from government regulation or law. That is more akin to Bretton Woods attempting to fix money’s value to $35 worth of gold perpetually.


This idea of “fiat” money is typically mixed up with confidence and acceptance. This illustration is actually correct the only difference is that people believe the dollar is money and will then accept it. This is the core step between barter and a medium of exchange. Those who say only gold is money are biased for that is what they believe is money, which is clearly not the present accepted norm. The first widely accepted money was cattle. When St Patrick first went to Ireland he was shocked that money was regarded as slave girls. He even wrote that his expenses were about the value of 15 humans.

Anything used as money must have a belief that someone else will accept it. Without that “belief” not even gold would have any value as a medium of exchange. So the difference between the dollar and monopoly money is simply “belief”. The key is acceptability for whatever emerges as money must be by broad acceptance.

To the extent money is “legal tender” means that the government will accept it for all payments due to them. The dollar is the most recognized form of money in the world not by the design of government, but by pure “belief” and demand. Of course many Americans who are pro-gold will not agree with that statement because they are too domestic in the focus. It is not that the USA is trustworthy, but insofar as other governments are even less like the Euro, Ruble, Yen, and Yuan. This is why we will eventually be driven into a representative form of an electronic reserve currency as a political compromise, not that this would be the ultimate solution. There is a difference between PRACTICAL ideas and LOFTY THEORIES of a perfect world to which you can never reach. The medium of exchange is purely a representative form of money which in that sense gold, diamonds, bitcoin, and paper money all share that commonality. None of these objects have a consistent value. So what is actually money? That has always been the total productive capacity of a person and a nation. This is why taxation is important for the higher the tax, the lower the productivity of a nation and the poorer it will become. The wealth of a nation is not its tangible objects, but its people’s productive capacity. You earn a wage for your labor and you accept money knowing someone else will take it from you “belief”. So is it the money or your labor that has the value?

Clearly, money can be “fiat money” even when it is a commodity if the state declares its value by regulation and accepts it at that standard. Of course, that was the case in China. Fiat money is currency which derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat (“let it be done”, “it shall be”). It differs from commodity money and representative money. Commodity money is based on some object or commodity, which has been cattle, sea shells, land, rice, wheat, bronze, or a precious metal such as gold or silver. The key was that the object had some utilitarian value or it was desirable and in sufficient quantity to provide a medium of exchange.

So to throw this term around loosely really confuses the issue for it misleads people into thing that somehow a gold standard will solve all problems. Our problem is not what is money, it is government and its endless historical evolution toward corruption. There is nothing new under the sun. We can come up with a solution for now, but eventually the cycle will kick in and we will return to where we are once again. The wheel of fortune always returns to where it began. Because of cycles, there will never be a permanent solution and only a fool would think so like Karl Marx.

[acptulsa]

u

It does not say that gold has no value- only that gold is highly unlikely to be used as money. 90% of money today is already digital.

Martin Armstrong (who is often cited by some here) has said that gold can be fiat.

Fiat is declaring something has a certain value. A gold standard is a fiat standard since the government declares the value of gold. Actually our money today is less fiat than gold because the value of the dollar is allowed to float.

No. For the third time, for the thousandth time, just no.

A gold standard is using gold as one's official currency. One does not declare gold to have value, one takes advantage of the fact that gold has intrinsic value.

There is still a difference, no matter how often you repeat your lie that there is not.

Taking something as worthless as paper and attempting to give it value by legislative fiat is how fiat money is created--by definition. Taking something of value and using that value to provide a population with a stable currency may require a legal fiat--such as declaring x amount of gold to be a unit of currency and giving it a name. But that is not the same thing as declaring something worthless to have value by legislative fiat.

Is it?

Well? Is it?

Keep repeating this lie over and over in multiple threads, Z2.0. There are rules against spamming here...

[TheCount]

A gold standard is using gold as one's official currency. One does not declare gold to have value, one takes advantage of the fact that gold has intrinsic value.

If a government declares that it will accept only X type of money, whatever that is, in payment for public debts, then it is contributing to the use and value of that type of money. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value or lack thereof.

[acptulsa]

If a government declares that it will accept only X type of money, whatever that is, in payment for public debts, then it is contributing to the use and value of that type of money. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value or lack thereof.

If the government declares that gold is legal tender, the gold still has intrinsic value.

And just as the mint had to start cladding pennies to keep people from melting them and selling the copper, the intrinsic value of a solid currency remains regardless.

On the other hand, the value of paper is the only limit on how far the value of the Federal Reserve Note can slide.

[Stratovarious]

If a government declares that it will accept only X type of money, whatever that is, in payment for public debts, then it is contributing to the use and value of that type of money. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value or lack thereof.

The Dollar could be declared worthless tonight, you would not be able to buy anything with it tomorrow.
You could take a million in 100's anywhere and get nothing of value in exchange.
You could take the copper from 'real' pennies and exchange it for bread, and of course buy a lot more bread with Gold.

The US Dollar is legal tender for all debts today, but when you continue to dilute it through quantitative easing and staggering
debt, it becomes of no value.
Being able to buy bread today at 8 times what it cost 20 or 25 years ago does not mean bread is more valuable, it means
the Dollar is less valuable.

We are screwed if we don't make drastic changes, and that doesn't mean watching our pennies , it means a gutting of the
system we are using.

Where have the grown ups gone that used to run our Country ?

, ,

[Jamesiv1]

So who actually OWNS all that gold?

Seems we talk in terms of nations having this much gold, this country has that much gold, etc... But how does a nation come into ownership of it?

[Stratovarious]

So who actually OWNS all that gold?

Seems we talk in terms of nations having this much gold, this country has that much gold, etc... But how does a nation come into ownership of it?

I'll take the third shelf in, the one that's not as full as all those others.....:hehe:

We bought our gold with worthless paper....doh doh doh, I don't know, but back in the day they actually used
physical gold as 'legal tender' , then we went to stamped Gold Coins...it would be interesting dig up the history
from British control to our independence and continue from there.

, ,

[Jamesiv1]

I'll take the third shelf in, the one that's not as full as all those others.....:hehe:

We bought our gold with worthless paper....doh doh doh, I don't know, but back in the day they actually used
physical gold as 'legal tender' , then we went to stamped Gold Coins...it would be interesting dig up the history
from British control to our independence and continue from there.

I think what bugs me is this:

1. the Fed is privately owned
2. we don't know who the owners are
3. possession is 9/10ths of the law

[oyarde]

I think what bugs me is this:

1. the Fed is privately owned
2. we don't know who the owners are
3. possession is 9/10ths of the law

This is why you should have your own " commodities" and lots of them .

[acptulsa]

I think what bugs me is this:

1. the Fed is privately owned
2. we don't know who the owners are
3. possession is 9/10ths of the law

As if you don't have enough to be bugged about...

4. The gold has been moved from Ft. Knox to the Fed Banks
5. possession is still nine points of the law

[Krugminator2]

The Dollar could be declared worthless tonight, you would not be able to buy anything with it tomorrow.
You could take a million in 100's anywhere and get nothing of value in exchange.
You could take the copper from 'real' pennies and exchange it for bread, and of course buy a lot more bread with Gold.

The US Dollar is legal tender for all debts today, but when you continue to dilute it through quantitative easing and staggering
debt, it becomes of no value.
Being able to buy bread today at 8 times what it cost 20 or 25 years ago does not mean bread is more valuable, it means
the Dollar is less valuable.

We are screwed if we don't make drastic changes, and that doesn't mean watching our pennies , it means a gutting of the
system we are using.

Where have the grown ups gone that used to run our Country ?

, ,

Instead of me, a random person on the internet, convincing you that you wrong with logic that you will likely discount because I am nobody, ask yourself a simple question:

Why have markets not confirmed your views and concerns? Is it because markets don't work? Is it because markets are offering up free money that only you and the wise folks at Zerohedge can see? Or is it possible that a number of your premises are wrong?

Your net worth and past success or failure at macro bets is probably a useful guide in answering those questions for yourself.